Arianna's New Book Shows How Media Ignored 'Downing Street Memo'

Arianna Huffington's new book, Right Is Wrong, should revive interest in numerous sins of omission and commission on the part of the mainstream media in the past few years. One episode -- dating from three years ago this month -- that I discuss briefly in my new book on Iraq and the media gets better play in her book.

You remember the Downing Street Memo? That formerly secret British document which revealed that almost a year before the attack on Iraq the British government had become convinced that the Bushites had "fixed" the intelligence to mislead everyone into supporting an invasion?

It became public and widely reported in the overseas press and on blogs in the U.S. (and at my own Editor & Publisher, one of the few MSM spots to cover it early on).

Arianna in her book contrasts that non-coverage in May with the massive attention lavished on the Natalee Holloway disappearance and the Michael Jackson child molesting trial. She even publishes a network-by-network scorecard.

For example, ABC News had nothing on the memo, 42 segments on Natalee, 121 pieces on Jacko. CBS News was even worse, while NBC did better (six whole segments on the memo). For News had 10 segments mentioning the memo -- but 148 on Natalee and 286 on Jacko.

Arianna then hits the network execs' tired old argument that "we're just giving the people what they want." Talk about "fixed intelligence"!

Later in the book, in her takedown of Tim Russert, she watches former GOP chief Ken Mehlman on Meet the Press on May 22, 2005, assert, referring to the British memo, "that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then."

Russert actually challenges him on this, saying that the memo's authenticity has not been discredited. Mehlman replies: "The fact that the intelligence was somehow 'fixed' have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it." With that, "Bulldog Russert just gave up."

Of course, nothing since then has either discredited the memo -- nor the view that the intelligence was, indeed, fixed.

Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Fails on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen, and has been hailed by Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald and others.

Comments

[fred123]

The "Downing Street Memo" was "dropped" as a scandal, because it really doesn't support your arguments for the Bush Adnimistration falsifying intelligence :

1) The word "fixed" in the memo clearly means firm, unchanging or unmoving ,and not "falsified". Interpreting "fixed" as indicating a knowing falsification of intelligence is deliberately taking that one word out of context, and applying a less common definition for the more standard maeaning of the word.

2)Read the whole memo - its interesting that the author, who is a member of the British intelligence community, takes it for granted that Iraq does indeed possess WMD, and its rather obvious that most of the British government does too.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Really? You get the meaning of "unchanging and unmoving" from the following statement?

"...British government had become convinced that the Bushites had "fixed" the intelligence to mislead everyone into supporting an invasion?"

That's funny you know.... because when someone fixes someting to mislead... it usually means they changed the truth (that's what misleading is).

But you Fred, in the world of Freddisms.... you think that "fixed" means unchanging....

Yes, they fixed the intelligence to be permanent; they glued it, to mislead people.

Seems kind of like you're either delusional, or..... a liar.

[beyondalldoubt]

I am 18 years old. If I disappeared in Aruba... NOBODY would know! NOBODY would care! I promise you that Greta would NEVER go down there and my mother wouldn't be given endless hours of free television time to cry and have her grief analyzed by mental health pundits.

Hannity wouldn't care. Colmes wouldn't go down to Aruba to search for me. My mother wouldn't be invited to speak with Condelezza Rice (as Beth was).

I would be VERY, VERY lucky to get two sentences written about me on page F14 of the newspaper.

The reason why Natalee gets the coverage is because she was pretty and had pretty parents, came from a pretty home and was rich and spoiled.

I am overweight and my hairs a mess and I don't photograph well... so that doesn't make for very good promos.

[Counterglow]

I doubt you're as unattractive as you seem to think. Even granting that, though, you'd be lucky to get those two sentences if you were black, too. The United States doesn't have a lot of journalists around right now. Info-tainment whores, yes...in the buzzing abundance one might expect around an open sewer.

[ghostwriter5]

Nice post, but I have to note that this is the very same press corp that is infatuated with Obama. People should be questioning whether the press have done their research or are just going with the popular story of the day--the new Natalee Holloway. I'm always suspicious of what thery are selling. . Russert's interview of Obama rehashed old issues and broke no new ground. He's no bulldog,he's just another tool. Better for The Dems if the dirt get unearthed now than in the GE, but no one is looking.

[blindjester]

"...the very same press corp that is infatuated with Obama."

The press that spent weeks excoriating him for his connection to Rev. Wright, additional days and weeks discussing whether a single comment makes him an elitist, and insists on talking about lapel pins, bowling scores and other shockingly irrelevant things, all in an effort to make him look foolish?

Good call!

[Durango]

Could you possibly have missed the point by a wider margin?

[ghostwriter5]

My point is that the same press corp that failed to push the memo story is the same one that is is love with the Obama story. They have their own agenda and that is to sell ad time--end of story. The Obama story is young and sexy so they go with it while it sells, then the Rev Wirght circus sells and they go with that. They are not interested in being objective investigative journalists.

[mamacat]

In the movie "Lions for Lambs," the issue of how and why the MSM is by and large ignoring its duty is addressed, very well. If anyone still hasn't seen the movie, I highly recommend it. A true movie masterpiece.

It did not do well in release, but I think it will have true lasting power. It is almost a perfect description of what we are living through today. My biggest complaint - it is way too short.

[timothe]

This blog is an outright lie. You people should be ashamed of yourselves for projecting lies onto others when it is you who are lying.

"You remember the Downing Street Memo? That formerly secret British document which revealed that almost a year before the attack on Iraq the British government had become convinced that the Bushites had "fixed" the intelligence on Iraq to mislead everyone into supporting an invasion?"

The Downing Street Memo did not state anything about "fixed" intelligence.

The Downing Street Memo did state that the Bush Administration was gearing up for a confrontation with Iraq with thin intelligence.

Big Big difference between fixed intelligence, which is lying and thin intelligence, which is a lack of sufficient proof of WMDs.

The memo can be found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

[SamEllison]

So where is the WMD?
The evidence was being fixed to fit the policy.
Evidence = intelligence
Sexed-up
So where is the WMD?

[Nyland8]

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfailed

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction,"
Dr. Hans Blix

8

[RadicalConservative]

Why not ask members of the Clinton administration that question? Long before Bush ever came onto the scene, Bill Clinton and everyone in his administration claimed that Saddam had WMDs. Were they making that fact up, or was there real evidence?

[fred123]

Assuming you are asking a serious question, here's a serious answer:
1) Some never existed in the first place - most intelligence estimates used the Iraqi declaration of stockpiles from the end of the first Gulf War as a starting point. It was the best direct info to be had and the assumption was that Saddam might try to hide some, but he wouldn't inflate the numbers on the declaration. In retrospect, the Iraqis may have done just that.
2) Worst case estimates on our destruction of WMD stocks - Damage to WMD stocks from Desert Fox (remember those air attacks from 98?) and Gulf War attacks were only estimated, and probably estimated low.
3) The Iraqis kept trying to get around the embargo - a lot of WMD precursor and dual use stuff was intercepted, and the assumption was that more got through.
4) the Iraqis bluffed a lot - there was a lot of activity at known sites- the assumption was that it was WMD production and storage. They still had active Chem units in their army, who behaved like they had the stuff on hand.
5)Out and out bad intell - A lot of the Iraqi ex-pats gave us bum data, and we accepted some of it.

[JackieW]

Did you even read the memo??

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

THE INTELLIGENCE AND FACTS WERE BEING FIXED AROUND THE POLICY.

As horrible as it is that the intelligence was "fixed" and clearly, there were no WMD, the perhaps most telling issue in the memo is the "little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Boy, are we ever living with the disaster that lead to.

[fred123]

The problem with this interpretation is that "fixed" in this context means established, unmoving, unchanging etc. It clearly was not intended to mean falsified. What he was trying to get across was that policymakers were pushing for firm intelligence conclusions rather than the somewhat nebulous, old and frequently contradictory stuff they had been feeding them up till then. That push resulted in the National Intelligence Estimate, which was certainly wrong in some (but not all) instances.

As an aside, having worked a fair amount with the Brits, they don't commonly use the word "fixed" to mean falsified or illegally prearranged. Don't put too much importance on the interpretation of this one word, particularly when the writer speaks the King's English instead of American version.

[mamacat]

Your comment is very good in some respects.
You have shown an interest in current affairs, you have stated your position and beliefs, and you did it without being insulting.
If the discussion continues, and if we can all conduct ourselves in this way, the process of understanding and education can be fruitful.
Of course, I disagree with your conclusion, but it is perfectly acceptable that reasonable people disagree.

[WarriorLemming]

This is disgraceful where have all the "investigative" reporters gone? It all comes down to money and a job it seems. If reporters don't say what the higher-ups want then hit the road and who is paying the higher-ups? This is the most unsettling news and I hope it doesn't get buried where all the other uncomfortable news goes to the land of "conspiracy theory".

[realpolitic]

All reporters today are afraid of losing access. So they just go along with the party line.

[Scarabus]

I do hope your last paragraph was intended to be seen as ironic. These days, our nation having slipped through the mirror into Alice's fantasy world, one can never be sure.

[realpolitic]

Yes, an attempt at all that "fair and balance" stuff turns all reporting into pablum. It was the Republicans who sank any attempt to investigate the politicalization of the intelligence.

[altohone]

The GOP says "the past is the past, and what we do going forward is important."

Moyers just showed clips of Revkin or Rivkin (something like that) insisting that prosecutions of those who violated our Constitution and laws shouldn't happen.


The neocons are doing all they can to avoid accountability for their actions, and the media should be assumed to be their defenders as well.

Anybody that STILL thinks the coprorate media's "failures" were driven by ratings is delusional.
Without even an investigation, there appears to be plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest collusion orchestrated by the decision makers.

We shouldn't ignore the actions of the Dems who voted for Bush's agenda and even Pelosi's actions that work out so well for the lawbreakers. One would think some sort of deal had been arranged.

[eyesopenwide]

Check this out: "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century"--A Report of The Project for the New American Century, dated September 2000.

It's lengthy--about 80 pages pdf--talk about a neocon wet dream--OMG!!

. . .we began a project in the spring of 1998. . .We started from the premise that U.S. military capabilities should be sufficient to support an American grand strategy committed to building upon this
unprecedented opportunity. . .In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in the. . .Bush Administration." (That's Sr.)

"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American allies."

". . .the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

". . .Projecting conventional military forces or simply asserting political influence abroad, particularly in times of crisis, will be far more complex and constrained when the American homeland or the territory of our allies is subject to attack by otherwise weak rogue regimes. . .Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[realpolitic]

Although, the Bush administration hovers around a 27% favorability rating, the lowest of all modern presidents, the media still is so cowered by this administration. They are not willing to penetrate the misdeeds and illegalities of the Bushies. It may be because of the Bushies willingness to just outright lie as Ken Mehlman did above when he said the Downing Street memo has been discredited. It may be because of the Bushies willingness to attack whomever goes after them even with legitimate stories. The media has held the bar far, far too low for the Bush administraion and consequently, this administration has shredded the constitution, mismanaged the fight against terror, and stolen our civil liberties in front of our very eyes.

[Gma11]

And many Dems continue to be cowed by the Clintons.

It's time to elect NEW leaders. Either get on board the 21th century express or be left behind.

As the corporate media is being left behind (newspapers especially so - and television "news" increasingly so) by Huffington Post and other internet news outlets.

[realpolitic]

Well, when the Clintons lie us into war let me know. I really do not care about someone's private affairs. The media was cowed by the Clintons? Starr investigated Bill Clinton for seven years and found next-to-nothing. I would like to see Bush undergo that scrutiny. He would never agree to it in the first place.

[Durango]

I agree we need to elect new leaders BUT: media cowed by the Clintons?

Where were you from 1992 to 2000? I have never seen a more disgraceful example of media frenzy involving no facts and no scandals. That went on for 8 full years.

Of course I have seen even more disgraceful media coverage since.

[liz]

For the MSM to start digging in and telling the truth now, they would have to admit that they were co-conspiritors in the first place. They will never do that.
In addition to uncovering the prosecutable facts about the acts of the Bush administration, the new Democratic administration should look into media reform that will give us the free press that democracy needs to exist.

[realpolitic]

Yes, they will have to admit first that they were unfair to Al Gore in the runup to the election. Then they always covered Bush as if he was president of a fraternity, like it was all good times. After 9-11, they cheerled the war and did little reporting on Bush mistruths of illegal weapons in Iraq. The coverage of this administration has been as poor as the administraion has been incompetent.